This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

Law Firms Mentioned

<img src="http://www.almcms.com/contrib

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC

Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.l.l.c.

/uploads/sites/402/2017/09/judge-and-balance-Article-201406171243-1.jpg" alt="" width="620" height="372" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1351" />
Can law firms that handed off a case to a successor firm recover its fees from the successor firm under a quantum meruit theory, or does the initiating firm need to sue the client?
That question was squarely before the state Supreme Court Tuesday morning in <em>Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek &amp; Eck v. Malone Middleman</em>���a case that��could open up quantum meruit��liability against successor law firms.
According to Meyer Darragh Buckler Bebenek &amp; Eck attorney Scott Millhouse, the answer is simple: If the successor firm benefited from the first firms work, the quantum meruit claim clearly lies with the successor firm.
"Theres no dispute that Meyer Darragh did the work on this case for the client that was material to the ultimate result," Millhouse said. "Malone Middleman [the successor firm] knew when it took on attorney [William] Weiler [who originated the case while he worked at Meyer Darragh] that Meyer Darragh expected to be paid for the work wed done on that case."
However, Ray Middleman, former managing partner of Malone Middleman who is now with Eckert Seamans Cherin &amp; Mellott, said the situation is more complicated.
The dispute stems from a motor vehicle litigation where Weiler represented an estate involved in the case. Weiler began working on the case while at Meyer Darragh, but later joined Malone Middleman. When he left Meyer Darragh, Weiler agreed the��firm could receive two-thirds of the attorneys fees. The client, however, subsequently retained Weiler again, and, following the change in representation, Malone Middleman contested the fee agreement, arguing it was not bound by the agreement between��Weiler and Meyer Darragh.
According to Middleman, the "Middleman firm had also agreed to take a lesser fee from the client because of Meyer Darraghs prior involvement in the case. He argued that Meyer Darraghs claim lay with the client, and that case law from the Superior Court clearly established that initiating firms cannot bring quantum meruit claims against successor firms.
However, at least three justices questioned the validity of that case law.
Early in the argument session, Justice David N. Wecht asked,��"Why do we rigidly follow that if it doesnt follow equity? Why dont we follow the money?" And later in the session, Justice Christine Donohue also asked,��"How does that make sense if a firm is unjustly enriched?"
Middleman maintained that the claim lies with the client, since the settlement is ultimately where the now-disputed money came from, and the initiating firm must protect its interest in the fees.
"We cut the fee in consideration of the clients obligation to another firm," Middleman said.
Justice Max Baer, however, questioned whether Middleman was raising that issue too late, and Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor said Middleman should be more "worried" about the Supreme Court overruling any hard and fast rule saying successor firms cant be sued on quantum meruit theories.
"Theres a holding of the intermediate court saying you can never sue a successor firm. Why is that good law?" Saylor asked.
Middleman replied again that the burden should be on the client.
"Putting the onus on a successor firm, I think is unreasonable," he said, adding that disputes between the firms could also lead to burdensome discovery dispute.
Millhouse, however, argued that getting into questions about whether the successor firm reduced its fee should not have any impact on his firms ability to recover.
"To me, its a simple case. We did the work and we deserve to be paid for it," Millhouse said. "The agreement was the agreement no matter who was handling the case. Theres no reason for us to pursue the client. The client paid the entire amount they were required to pay."
<em>Max Mitchell can be contacted at 215-557-2354 or mmitchell@alm.com. Follow him on Twitter @MMitchellTLI.</em>
<

Philadelphia attorney Bruce Chasan claims John Pierce and his fast-growing firm acted in bad faith by failing to finalize a $160,000 settlement.

Featured Firms

Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone

2 Oliver St #608

Boston,
MA02109

857-444-6468

www.marksalomone.com

Gary Martin Hays & Associates
P.C.

235 Peachtree St NE #400

Atlanta,
GA30303

800-898-4297

www.garymartinhays.com

Smith & Hassler

225 N Loop W #525

Houston,
TX77008

(877) 777-1529

www.smithandhassler.com

Presented by BigVoodoo

More from ALM

Premium Subscription

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.

Team Accounts

Our Team Account subscription service are for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.

Bundle Subscriptions

Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both option are priced the same.

From Data to Decisions

Exclusive Depth and Reach.

Legal Compass includes access to our exclusive industry reports, combining the unmatched expertise of our analyst team with ALM’s deep bench of proprietary information to provide insights that can’t be found anywhere else.

Big Pictures and Fine Details

Legal Compass delivers you the full scope of information, from the rankings of the Am Law 200 and NLJ 500 to intricate details and comparisons of firms’ financials, staffing, clients, news and events.

GOLD, ALBANESE, BARLETTI & LOCASCIO, LLC

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters.
Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss.
Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.